Superseding Indictment — United States v. Jean Robert Dorcius, Southern District of Florida (Document 14)

Summary

A superseding indictment against Jean Robert Dorcius, Case No. 22-CR-20553-SCOLA(s), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket 01/27/2023 as Document 14. Counts 1-2 charge wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, alleging false PPP and EIDL applications for Dorcius Motors LLC with falsified IRS forms, a PPP loan from Cross River of approximately $330,615 and an EIDL loan of approximately $109,900. The indictment alleges that Dorcius then enrolled Dorcius Motors with ADP to create a fictitious payroll used to apply for loan forgiveness. Count 3 charges money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 over a wire transfer of approximately $200,000 on or about June 9, 2020, and Count 4 charges aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). The indictment also includes forfeiture allegations and a penalty sheet.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 1 of 11

JAN 2.6 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ANGELA E. NOBLE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CLERK U.S. DIST. CT.

S. D. OF FLA. - MIAMI

D.C.

CASE NO. 22-CR-20553-SCOLA(s)
18 U.S.C. § 1343
18 U.S.C. § 1957
18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)
18 U.S.C. §2
18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)
18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS,

Defendant.
/

SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges that:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

At all times relevant to this Superseding Indictment:
The Small Business Administration

1. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an executive
branch agency of the United States government that provided support to entrepreneurs and small
businesses. The mission of the SBA was to maintain and strengthen the nation’s economy by
enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the economic
recovery of communities after disasters.

2. As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided for loans through banks, credit

unions, and other lenders. These loans had government-backed guarantees.
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 2 of 11

The Paycheck Protection Program

3. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a federal
law enacted in or around March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial assistance to
the millions of Americans who were suffering from the economic effects caused by the COVID-
19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of forgivable
loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program referred
to as'the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).

4, In order to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business submitted a PPP loan
application, which was signed by an authorized representative of the business. The PPP loan
application required the business (through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the
program rules and make certain affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP
loan. In the PPP loan application (Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Form 2483), the small
business (through its authorized representative) was required to provide, among other things, its:
(a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees. These figures were used to
calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive under the PPP. In

addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required to provide documentation confirming

their payroll expenses.

5. A PPP loan application was processed by a participating lender. If a PPP loan
application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan using its own monies.
While it was the participating lender that issued the PPP loan, the loan was 100% guaranteed by
the SBA. Data from the application, including information about the borrower, the total amount
of the loan, and the listed number of employees, was transmitted by the lender to the SBA in the

course of processing the loan.
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 3 of 11

6. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the business on certain permissible
expenses—payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP allowed the interest
and principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the business spent the loan proceeds on
these expense items within a designated period of time and used a defined portion of the PPP loan
proceeds on payroll expenses.

The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program

7. Another related response to the COVID-19 outbreak was an expansion of an
existing disaster-related program — the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (““EIDL”) — to provide for
loan assistance (including $10,000 advances) for small businesses and other eligible entities for
loans up to $2 million. The EIDL proceeds could have been used to pay fixed debts, payroll,
accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred; however,
such loan proceeds were not intended to replace lost sales or profits, or for the expansion of a
business.

8. Unlike certain other types of SBA-guaranteed loans, EIDL funds were issued
directly from the United States Treasury, and applicants applied for RIDL funds directly through
the SBA via an online portal and application. The EIDL application process, which also used
certain outside contractors for system support, collected information concerning the business and
the business owner, including: information about the gross revenues for the business prior to
January 31, 2020; and the cost of goods sold. Applicants electronically certified that the
information provided was true and accurate and were warned that any false statement or
misrepresentations to the SBA, or any misapplication of loan proceeds may result in sanctions,

including criminal penalties.
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 4 of 11

9. EIDL applications were received in and processed using computer servers located
in the states of Iowa, Virginia, and Washington. EIDL disbursement payments were initiated by
the SBA using computer servers located in the state of Colorado, which transmitted the payment
information to the Treasury using computer servers located in the state of Virginia.

The Defendant and Related Entities and Individuals

10... JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS was a resident of Osceola County, Florida.
11. | Dorcius Motors LLC (“Dorcius Motors”) was a Florida limited liability company
with its listed principal address located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Relevant Banks and Processors

12. | Cross River Bank (“Cross River”) was a financial institution based in Fort Lee,
New Jersey, and an approved SBA lender of PPP loans.

13. Wells Fargo Bank (“Wells Fargo”) was a financial institution based in San
Francisco, California.

14. Bluevine was a third-party company processor, based in Redwood City, California,

that processed PPP loan applications for Cross River.

15. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (“ADP”) was a provider of payroll, human
resources, and benefits services based in Roseland, New Jersey.
COUNTS 1-2
Wire Fraud
(18 U.S.C. §1343)
1. The General Allegations section of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated
by reference as though fully set forth herein.

2. From in or around June 2020, and continuing through in or around June 2022, in

Miami-Dade County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant,
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 5of11

JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS,

did knowingly, and with the intent to defraud, devise, and intend to devise, a scheme and artifice
to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, and promises, knowing that the pretenses, representations, and
promises were false and fraudulent when made, and, for the purpose of executing the scheme and
artifice, did knowingly transmit and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communications in
interstate commerce, certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343.

OBJECT OF THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE

3. It was the object of the scheme and artifice for the defendant and his accomplices
to unlawfully enrich themselves by, among other things: (a) submitting and causing the submission
of false and fraudulent applications for loans made available through the SBA to provide relief for
the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including PPP and/or EDIL loans; and
(b) diverting fraud proceeds for the defendant’s and accomplices’ personal use, the use and benefit
of others, and to further the scheme and artifice.

THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE

The manner and means by which the defendant and his accomplices sought to accomplish
the object and purpose of the scheme and artifice included, among others, the following:

4. JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS and others submitted and caused the submission of
fraudulent PPP and EJDL loan applications under the name of Dorcius Motors, using the Miami,
Florida address and Dorcius Motors’s EIN, via interstate wire communications.

5. In furtherance of the scheme, JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS submitted and caused
‘the submission of false and fraudulent information and documentation in support of the PPP and

EIDL loan applications, including falsified Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) forms, and falsely

-5-
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 6 of 11

and fraudulently represented Dorcius Motors’ number of employees, amount of monthly payroll,
and amount of gross revenue.

6. As a result of the false and fraudulent PPP loan applications submitted as part of
this scheme, Cross River approved a PPP loan for Dorcius Motors, and disbursed the loan proceeds
in the approximate amount of $330,615 to Dorcius Motors at the Wells Fargo bank account for
Dorcius Motors, via interstate wire transmission.

7. As a result of the false and fraudulent EIDL loan applications submitted as part of
this scheme, the SBA approved an EIDL loan for Dorcius Motors, and disbursed the EIDL loan
proceeds in the approximate amount of $109,900 to Dorcius Motors at the Wells Fargo bank
account for Dorcius Motors, via interstate wire transmission.

8. After receiving the fraudulently obtained funds, JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS
enrolled Dorcius Motors with ADP as a payroll processor to create a fictitious payroll that included
DORCIUS and his children, and used the fictitious payroll to apply for loan forgiveness with
Cross River.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

USE OF THE WIRES

9. On or about the dates below, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere,
JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS for the purpose of executing and in furtherance of the aforesaid
scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, knowing that the pretenses, representations,
and promises were false or fraudulent when made, did knowingly transmit and cause to be
transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce, by means of wire communications, certain

writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, as described below:
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 7 of 11

COUNT | APPROXIMATE DATE DESCRIPTION OF WIRE

1 June 5, 2020 The submission of an electronic PPP loan application on
behalf of Dorcius Motors to Bluevine, causing a wire
transmission from the Southern District of Florida to
outside the State of Florida
2 June 16, 2020 The submission of an electronic EIDL application on
behalf Dorcius Motors to the SBA, causing a wire
transmission from the Southern District of Florida to
outside the State of Florida

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.
COUNT 3
Money Laundering
(18 U.S.C. § 1957)

1. The General Allegations Section of this Indictment is re-alleged and incorporated
by reference as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about June 9, 2020, in Miami-Dade County, in the Southern District of
Florida, the defendant,

JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS,

did knowingly engage in a monetary transaction, by, through, and to a financial institution
affecting interstate commerce in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, and
such property having been derived from a specified unlawful activity, knowing that the property
involved in the monetary transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity,
7that is, a wire transfer of funds in the approximate amount of $200,000 from Dorcius Motors’
account ending in 5298 at Wells Fargo to DORCIUS’ personal account ending in 6966 at Wells
Fargo.

It is further alleged that the specified unlawful activity is wire fraud, in violation of Title

18, United States Code, Section 1343.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2.
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 8 of 11

COUNT 4
Aggravated Identity Theft

Met ws (18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1))
4
On or about Aepude 26, 2020, in Miami-Dade County, in the Southern District of Florida,

and elsewhere, the defendant,

JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS,
during and in relation to a felony violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, that is,
wire fraud, as charged in Count 2 of this Indictment, did knowingly transfer, possess, and use,
without lawful authority, a means of an) of another person, that is, the name, address,
date of birth, and Social Security number of “MG” in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Sections 1028A(a)(1) and 2.

FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS

1. The allegations of this Indictment are hereby re-alleged and by this reference fully
incorporated herein for the purpose of alleging forfeiture to the United States of America of certain
property in which the defendant, JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS, has an interest.

2. Upon conviction of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, as
alleged in this Indictment, the defendant shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or
personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such offense, pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C).

3. Upon conviction of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957, as
alleged in this Indictment, the defendant shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or
personal, involved in such offense, and any property traceable to such property, pursuant to Title

18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1).
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 9 of 11

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(1), and the
procedures set forth at Title 21, United States Code, Section 853, as incorporated by Title 28,
United States Code, Sections 2461(c) and 982(b)(1).

A TRUE

FOREPE

UNIWED STATES ATTORNEY

ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 10 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO.: 22-CR-20553-SCOLA(s)
v.
CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY*
JEAN ROBERT DORCIUS,
/ Superseding Case Information:
Defendant.

Court Division (select one) New Defendant(s) (Yes or No) No

Miami Key West [IFTP Number of New Defendants

E] FTL WPB Total number of New Counts 1
I do hereby certify that:

1,

I have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number of probable
witnesses and the legal complexities of the Indictment/Information attached hereto.

I am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judges of this Court in setting
their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy Trial Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §3161.

Interpreter: (Yes or No) No
List language and/or dialect:

This case will take 5 days for the parties to try.

Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below:

(Check only one) (Check only one)
I Oto 5 days [7] Petty

II £1 6to 10 days Minor

ll [E11 to 20 days [] Misdemeanor
IV [E221 to 60 days Felony

V__ E161 days and over

Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) Yes

If yes, Judge Scola Case No. 22-CR-20553-SCOLA

Has a complaint been filed in this matter? (Yes or No) No

If yes, Magistrate Case No.

Does this case relate to a previously filed matter in this District Court? (Yes or No) No

If yes, Judge Case No.

Defendant(s) in federal custody as of
Defendant(s) in state custody as of

Rule 20 from the District of
Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No

Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney’s Office
prior to August 8, 2014 (Mag. Judge Shaniek Maynard? (Yes or No) No

Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the U.S. Attorney’s Office
prior to October 3, 2019 (Mag. Judge Jared Strauss? (Yes or No) No

By: An (2
istant United States Attorney

Court ID No. A5502602
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 11 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENALTY SHEET

Defendant's Name: _ Jean Robert Dorcius

Case No: _22-CR-20553-SCOLA(s)

Counts #: [—2

Wire Fraud

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343

* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 Years’ Imprisonment

* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable):
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 Years

* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count #: 3

Money Laundering

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957

* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 10 Years’ Imprisonment

* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable):
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 Years

* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count #: 4

Aggravated Identity Theft

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1) __

* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 2 Years’ Imprisonment Consecutive to Any Other Sentence
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable):

* Max. Supervised Release: 3 Years

* Max. Fine: $250,000

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and fines. It does not include
restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.


File and source

File

14-indictment.pdf

Size

457,336 bytes

SHA-256

1b2e35a3e3bc8ff82e41b45a2b5d5a1a51b88f35bc404b126f246435989e2c64

Our copy

14-indictment.pdf

Original

archive.org